Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources October 7 2008WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Natural Resources Committee October 7, 2008 Committee Chair Carl Weimer called the meeting to order at 9:35 a.m. in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Present: Absent: Seth Fleetwood None Bob Kelly Also Present: L. Ward Nelson Barbara Brenner Sam Crawford COMMITTEE WORK SESSION 1. WORK SESSION ON THE PROPOSED MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES FOR THE PURPOSE OF PREPARING AN INTER -GRANT EXCHANGE AND SUBSEQUENT RE- CONVEYANCE PROPOSAL FOR A TRANSFER OF LANDS WITHIN AND ADJOINING THE LAKE WHATCOM WATERSHED RESERVOIR FOR PARK PURPOSES PURSUANT TO RCW 79.22.300 (AB2008 -074A) Weimer stated he sent a list of questions to Mr. McFarland to be answered today. He asked if memorandum of agreement for the inter -grant process is just an assessment of the lands that will be switched or an actual land swap. Mike McFarland, Parks and Recreation Department Director, stated it is an actual land swap. The County pays the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to do the land swap and prepare all the documentations to move forward with reconveyance. Weimer asked if they could go forward with the land swap, but not the reconveyance, so the Council would have swapped land without a reconveyance. McFarland stated that's correct. They would exchange title of Forest Board lands with other trust lands. They would end up with the same configuration, and the DNR would still manage the entire 15,000 acres. However, the trusts would be dealt with differently. Weimer submitted an email of his list of questions (on file). He read the first set of questions regarding legal issues. McFarland stated an initial question is whether the DNR will accept the County's plans for an undeveloped forest reserve as sufficient to meet the "park" requirement. That is what the memorandum of agreement (MOA) does. The Recreation Conservation Office (RCO) staff decided early in the process that they were comfortable that the proposal for the area is a park purpose. DNR staff locally and in Olympia said to him that the plan for this area meets the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) requirement for park purposes. The MOA takes care of any of those concerns. The plan meets the park purpose. Natural Resources Committee, 10/7/2008, Page 1 The zoning allows parks as a conditional use. The term "parks" is encompassing. It can be developed or not. The activities proposed on the reconveyed lands are allowed under the current zoning. The reconveyed lands already adjoin existing parks. They need a proposal that shows the relationship of the properties. Those existing parks will provide access to the reconveyed areas. The name isn't critical. The decision on the name is yet to be made. He contacted the Planning Director about what the Planning Department perceives about what they're proposing. The Planning Department won't make a determination of allowed use until the Parks Department submits something to the Planning Department for development. He read a list of items that are allowed in the current commercial forest zone. If Parks Department staff propose something not outright permitted, such as disbursed camping, they would want to get a conditional use. Trails and trailheads are permitted. Parking is on adjoining property. Nelson stated those adjoining parks aren't the same size and nature of what's proposed. Other existing parks are currently full most of the time. He asked if the adjoining areas would be adequate to serve the reconveyed areas. McFarland stated parking is allowed along the road shoulders. They can't build parking lots for peak use times, or they will sit empty other times. At the north trailhead, there are three small parking lots. The work schedule includes an item to come up with a plan for that entire area. "rhat would facilitate additional parking if there was more development down there. There are also ways to reconfigure the existing lots. They are looking at other areas like the Stimson Reserve, Olsen property, and a trailhead along Lake Louise Road. This proposal will link to neighborhoods in the area. Smaller properties that can be used as trailheads are scattered throughout the watershed. Have smaller parking areas around the watershed instead of one big parking area. The decision to expand those areas would be based on what's tolerable. Nelson stated they already deal with over - parking now. The Council hasn't heard how they are going to plan for additional parking needs. McFarland stated there will be development concerns and issues to deal with in the future. Nelson asked if they know how much it would cost and where it would go. McFarland stated they have estimates for existing facilities. They are working through design work on other properties. The work plan includes work on the North Lake Whatcom trailhead. Until they get through that process, it's hard to make an estimate. These are watershed properties. They are trying to keep the amount of impervious surfaces to a minimum and the amount of parking down. Brenner asked if there is a legal definition of a preserve versus a park. She keeps getting emails from people who call it a preserve. McFarland stated there isn't a legal definition for a preserve. There isn't a standard definition. The terms "preserve" and "reserve" are used interchangeably. Generally, they are low- or no- developed areas. The focus is less on recreation and more on natural attributes of the site. The Stimson Reserve is a fine example of a reserve or preserve that also allows hiking. Brenner stated she was asked if there would be logging. There is confusion about what could or would happen on the properties. McFarland stated the County Council decides what uses are allowed in the park. Weimer asked if the State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) liabilities pass to the County. Natural Resources Committee, 10/7/2008, Page 2 1 2 Randy Watts, Prosecutor's Office, stated the County has no interest in the land now. 3 Taking on title will take on potential litigation. The DNR will continue to have a presence 4 after reconveyance, regarding roads. Roads that have been completely abandoned as of 5 now are abandoned under DNR's reclamation plan. The statute of repose has to do with 6 improvements and work done on real estate, which says that the cause of action has to 7 arise within six years of the work, or it's barred. Then it comes down on whether the 8 County has a continuing duty to maintain. That's always an issue of fact. Even within this 9 reconveyance, DNR will still have a presence. 10 11 Crawford stated an example he's heard from the public in emails to him is a situation 12 that occurred in 1982 when the road at the big Northshore Road curve washed out and had 13 to be rebuilt. At that time, DNR had the land, yet the County had the cost. Watts stated 14 that in 1982, a hook for County liability was that the old bridge was considered a 15 constriction of the creek, and a lot of the damage was caused as a result of a blockage 16 under that bridge. It washed out during that event. Thus, the road was relocated and the 17 new bridge constructed in such a manner to not cause that problem. 18 19 Crawford asked if the County, due to this transaction with DNR, would become liable 20 for geologic hazards that could be subject to mass wasting in a 100 -year storm event. 21 Watts stated that if they don't have ownership in the property, they won't have liability for 22 the conditions on the property. Taking title to anything will bring on some risk that should 23 be evaluated. 24 25 Crawford asked the difference between ownership and who really pays. Watts stated 26 that if the cause of a massive failure is strictly natural, there is no liability. If there are 27 artificially- created conditions on the property that contribute to a problem and things 28 haven't been maintained, there is liability. 29 30 Crawford asked if the plans for this property are for just a small amount of 31 development such as trails, not major road construction. McFarland stated they are talking 32 about 50 miles of trails using existing roads, existing trails, other areas, and a portion of 33 new trails. A number of road miles would be abandoned. The County would be responsible 34 for and restore about nine miles of road. The DNR will need to continue to use a number of 35 roads through this area. DNR has indicated there will be about one - quarter mile of new 36 road construction. The County Parks Department doesn't propose to maintain a road 37 system because this is a trail system. 38 39 Weimer stated there is a legal settlement that requires DNR to keep an eye on 40 certain areas, such as Swift Creek. Local residents say the creek is getting ready to flood 41 again due to build -up in the creek. He asked if the County would take on that problem if it 42 takes over title to the property. Watts stated he's not aware of the situation. If they take 43 title to something, they may assume its liabilities. If DNR has a presence in the area, 44 consider making sure DNR continues to be responsible for that maintenance. He doesn't 45 know if the Parks Department has taken a look at those risks. He understands that DNR will 46 continue to have a presence. If that's correct, the County may have the DNR continue to 47 monitor the things it's obligated to monitor. 48 49 Nelson asked what it means specifically that DNR will have a presence in the area. 50 Watts stated Mr. McFarland indicated the DNR will continue to maintain roadways. It might 51 involve some logging, if that's part of future decisions. 52 Natural Resources Committee, 10/7/2008, Page 3 Nelson asked how that relates to issues with creek beds and mass wasting that may occur naturally or otherwise. He asked how DNR's presence will specifically have an effect on those things. Watts stated that depends on what is creating the waste, and if waste is created through natural forest evolution or is being helped along by forest practices. Nelson stated it doesn't matter if the waste is natural or otherwise. Property owners who suffer damage from a mass wasting event will look for compensation from someone. That could become a litigious situation. He asked if the County would be present in that situation. Watts stated it would be. Nelson stated they can't diminish County responsibility by indicating DNR presence. Brenner stated DNR has liability with Swift Creek. She's concerned about liability, not just DNR- caused liability. She asked if DNR's presence is going to be the same as it was before, and who would pay for the DNR's presence, specifically with forest fires. More fires are caused by human activity, even if the County prohibits campfires. She's also concerned about off -road vehicles. McFarland stated the County would pay for fire protection, based on a given rate the DNR has on wild lands, amounting to about $2,500 per year. The liability from a fire would be on the person who started the fire. Brenner asked who pays for a very large forest fire response. McFarland stated that amount is the cost of fire protection from DNR on those lands. The only way the County would have to pay more is if it is caused by a County employee or County negligence. Watts stated that type of event would be considered an emergency and handled through State and federal resources. They always go back and try to find the individual who started it. The initial fire fight would be taken care of under a State emergency. Finances would come from State and federal agencies. If the fire did a lot of damage to homes, for example, there would be litigation afterwards with the homeowners' insurance companies and whoever caused the fire. Weimer referenced the next question on link between zoning and the Growth Management Act (GMA). The GMA says they ought to protect forestry practices. Now they are doing something other than protecting forest practices by setting the forest aside. Fleetwood stated the GMA also says counties should have recreation. McFarland stated the question was broad. Reconveyance is not anti - logging or anti - forestry. It's simply a transfer of real estate, and the property needs to be used for park purposes. Many parks have some limited forestry that occurs. A number of stands in this area would benefit from limited forest practices and thinning. The simple act of reconveyance to the County for park purposes isn't a conflict with the GMA. Some of the examples cited of certain recreation uses are such as athletic fields and things that aren't permitted across all forestry zones. Within the current County park system, there are five properties that have segments of or are completely within the commercial forestry zone and have activities similar to what is proposed for the re- conveyed lands. It's never been an issue. The Canyon Lake Community Forest is completely within a commercial forestry zone. Nelson asked if Canyon Lake is a Whatcom County Park. McFarland stated it is. Nelson stated there is a trickle -down effect from reduced forestry practices on 8,000 acres. That effect could total $3 million to $5 million. He asked about how that translates to protecting forestry practices. He asked if the transfer would include additional lands for Natural Resources Committee, 10/7/2008, Page 4 forestry practices. There won't be. It would be similar to taking 8,000 acres of agricultural land, which they don't have, out and saying they are still protecting agricultural practices because the park will be zoned agriculture. This will reduce forestry practices, which is contrary to GMA. That's something this Council must consider. This reduces forestry practices. Over half of Whatcom County already has protected forest land in the national forest. The reduction of those forest practices will also result in lower tax revenues for the County and services will be reduced. Other districts have commented on the amount of their revenue that would be reduced, and which the County may have to pay for. Don't say they are complying with GMA just because they now have a park. Fleetwood asked the amount of acreage on average cut per year in this area. McFarland stated it ranges from 70 to 100 acres per year. Brenner stated it's not about how much is cut per year. Many years go into the maintenance of the forest before it's cut. There are many other indirect jobs. The same board foot brings in revenue for the County. She asked if they've calculated direct and indirect costs. Nelson stated there is a formula. Fleetwood asked how many acres are cut annually countywide. McFarland stated he can get that number. Weimer read the next question about ongoing maintenance costs and ongoing forest maintenance. McFarland stated the $150,000 estimate for annual maintenance and operations is based on current park rates. They won't be high- maintenance trails. They also compared to the Anacortes Community Forest. It is a good estimate. It includes one full -time park ranger and two seasonal rangers. There are other park holdings in the watershed that the Park Department staff maintain. Development costs are based on the estimated trail system. The estimate would be finalized when the transfer occurs. Those numbers are consistent with estimates, based upon what they have in the Comprehensive Plan for capital costs and what it costs the County to do trail development. They would have to draft a forest management plan to determine what they want to do for that area. That would determine the forest management costs. That hasn't been done. Part of it is based on the final reconveyance boundaries. Brenner asked the total cost for the seasonal rangers, including benefits. McFarland stated that is included in the $150,000. They've included development costs as a separate cost item. Brenner asked about problems such as infestations and noxious weeds. McFarland stated that is something that will require work and effort. How much money they want to commit to that is a Council decision. Being in the watershed, they would rely on hand methods to manage those problems. (Clerk's Note; End of tape one, side A.) Generally, it's not something the trail crew deals with. They don't wander around the 6,700 acres of County park lands to deal with those issues. They deal with it when it becomes a problem and when the opportunity arises. That is a continuing problem as they acquire lands for parks. Those are specific issues that are identified in the plan. Infestations and other such things aren't generally dealt with on one specific property, but Natural Resources Committee, 10/7/2008, Page 5 within a region or area. If there were an infestation on Park lands, they would deal with it. However, an infestation will more likely occur and be addressed within the entire watershed. Weimer stated it sounds like Mr. McFarland recommends developing a forest management plan, but that is done after the inter -grant is done, when they know exactly which lands are involved. McFarland stated put it off until after the reconveyance and the County has ownership of the property. Weimer asked if a forest maintenance plan can be stretched out, just like trail development can be. McFarland stated it could. They could do a forest management plan . in -house or contract out. They can put together a good plan. They must have a forest management plan to address some of the issues. Weimer asked if DNR is doing something on the land now that the County wouldn't do. McFarland stated the County wouldn't harvest strictly for revenue. The goals would be different. The forest management plan would be to determine their goals and objectives in that forested environment. The County must decide what the forest should look like. The plan addresses the steps required to get there. 'The County would inherit a number of different forest types and ages. The County would use the DNR database to look at those things and make decisions accordingly. The County may manage different from how DNR manages. In certain instances, the County may depend on volunteers to plant and use contractors for selective cutting. The County negotiates with DNR on those forest practice activities. Nelson asked if they are being asked to do this before they know how much a forest management plan would cost. He asked if accepting this means that the County will go forward with reconveyance. McFarland stated he can find out how much how much a forest management plan would cost, based on what they know. The reconveyance is the transfer of the ownership of lands. Starting the plan before the County has ownership is premature. Nelson stated find out the true costs for other things, not just ongoing maintenance. Include costs for things like dealing with invasive species and any other costs that may come up. McFarland stated no one tackles invasive species in the watershed. . Weimer asked if the County's care maintenance would backslide from the level of DNR's care and maintenance. Bill Wallace, DNR Northwest Region Manager, stated the DNR deals with invasive species on its lands when there is a budget and an acute problem. There are also invasive species on DNR properties that they don't deal with. They deal with it on a small scale. Fleetwood asked for an example situation in which the DNR would deal with invasive species. Wallace stated they would address invasive species as much as they can to protect nearby lands that need to be protected, such as agricultural resource lands. Nelson asked about insect infestation. Wallace stated the DNR has an aggressive forest health program. It deals with insects and disease. The program is evaluated statewide on State and private forestlands. They work with the federal government to determine what those issues are. DNR staff works from airplanes using satellites and imagery to determine those issues statewide. They deal with the issue when it becomes acute and needs to be dealt with. Many of the problems now are in Eastern Washington. It's something they continually monitor statewide. Natural Resources Committee, 10/7/2008, Page 6 1 Nelson asked if DNR would continue to monitor and treat these 8,000 acres to help 2 protect against insect or invasive species infestation. Wallace stated he doesn't know what 3 that means when they say the DNR will have a presence. The DNR will be involved in the 4 forest fire program. All State and private forestland owners pay DNR to protect their lands 5 from fire. The DNR has a presence due to its forest practices regulatory program. All non - 6 federal forestland owners have to apply for a forest practice permit. The level of DNR's 7 presence depends on the County's plan for this park and the DNR's land management plans 8 for its adjacent lands. If the DNR needs a road across the County's park, it will make sure it 9 has that access and will maintain that road. There will be a DNR presence for that road 10 activity. The DNR's presence is based on the forest management plan and whatever DNR 11 agrees to in terms of participation. Now, the County doesn't have a specific plan. 12 13 Nelson stated the County must define the costs of DNIR's presence and of costs due 14 to infestations. Weimer stated costs depend on the specific infestation. 15 16 Weimer read the questions from the handout on funding to the Mt. Baker School 17 District. Legally, they haven't found a way to make the district whole. McFarland stated 18 that's correct. The amount by which the district would be affected, according to the 19 modeling done and DNR estimates, is in table 11. 20 21 Brenner asked if Mr. McFarland would provide more definite numbers about .lost 22 funding. McFarland stated it's up to the Finance Department to look at the numbers 23 presented. Estimates fluctuate depending on the amount of activity that occurs. 24 25 Brenner asked for a breakdown of direct and indirect costs. 26 27 Crawford stated he doesn't understand table 11. The Mt. Baker School District says 28 the reconveyance would cost the district about $100,000 per year, and would increase to $3 29 million over the next 20 years. The district also says that the reconveyance will result in a 30 loss of value of over $10 million, of which $3.5 million would have gone to its bond fund, 31 and that reconveyance would cost the bond fund about $100,000 annually. He asked if 32 those estimates are correct. McFarland stated he can't answer for the school district. When 33 he asked for the information from the DNR, the information in table 11 is what the DNR 34 provided. 35 36 Crawford stated the Council does not have information that the district's numbers 37 are incorrect. McFarland stated the mediation process contactor assessed the district 38 revenues. Councilmembers were provided that information through the mediation process. 39 40 Crawford stated the citizen review panel recommends that forest areas in the 41 watershed go to old growth. That's the way forestry is going in the watershed anyway. 42 They are assuming that the district will continue to receive this revenue. The panel 43 recommended $500,000 total to all entities. That's a lot of money. 44 45 Weimer asked if the County should have a clear plan on what it's agreeing to, before 46 moving forward with the inter -grant process. A conservation easement would prevent 47 future councils from changing the use of the property to a use that is less beneficial to the 48 lake. 49 50 Brenner asked who would do enforcement. McFarland stated the Sheriff's Office 51 would respond to criminal issues, and Parks Department staff would enforce day -to -day 52 rules and regulations. 53 Natural Resources Committee, 10/7/2008, Page 7 Fleetwood asked if the conservation easement requires the Land Trust to do some monitoring and enforcement. Rand Jack, Whatcom Land Trust, stated the Land Trust would monitor periodically, but County Parks Department staff would be a daily presence. Nelson asked the policies for public access on DNR lands currently. Wallace stated a use must be consistent with the DNR's fiduciary responsibility to make money and to protect the environment for public use and recreation. As all forestland owners are, the DNR is challenged to provide increased public use. They are working on creating a balance. The DNB's recreational niche is disbursed recreation such as trail use. Nelson asked if the County's plans for these lands are just what DNR allows now. Wallace stated they are, in terms of trail use. The DNR would not develop 50 miles of trails. Many folks can use the existing trails now. The County would bring in more folks for a more intensive use. Nelson asked the problems with public access to DNR lands. Wallace stated the problems include damaging resources such as streams, garbage dumping, and timber theft. Nelson asked if increased access would multiply those problems. Wallace stated they deal with those problems through education, engineering, and enforcement. If there are resources and a presence to deal with problems, they will have a better chance of succeeding. Crawford asked if the DNR has dealt with the issues specifically mentioned on these proposed reconveyed lands, including landslides, floods, invasive species, and pest infestations,. He asked the scale of some of these problems. Wallace stated they deal with those problems regularly to some degree. They produce an annual report on those things. Certain areas are prone to natural landslides and landslides caused by forestry and roads. Crawford asked if Mr. Wallace believes that the amount of work and staff for these areas are realistic. Wallace stated he is not an expert in park management. Fleetwood moved to recommend approval to the full Council, to authorize the Executive to enter into the memorandum of agreement. If necessary, reschedule this in the Finance Committee or Planning Committee. However, he's confident he can support the memorandum of agreement, especially given the water quality aspect. Nelson stated he has several questions that haven't been answered, including the management plan. Don't go ahead with public tax dollars by assuming liability that DNR now carries, when the water quality impacts are the same no matter who owns it. Don't go forward without getting important questions answered for the taxpayers of the community. Fleetwood stated he's satisfied at this point. He's indicated a willingness to continue this in committee if there are future questions. Weimer stated the Natural Resource Committee has devoted two entire meetings on this issue, and has no more time in the next meeting. It could go to the Planning Committee. Brenner stated it belongs in Finance Committee through the budget process. Don't make a final decision until it goes through the budget process and put it through a hearing. Natural Resources Committee, 10/7/2008, Page 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Fleetwood withdrew his motion and stated he would try to schedule. it in his Planning Committee. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 11:06 a.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcrip on ATTES ti`0"""11111111 // / O. ; [%na Vrgv",Vt& o;rncil I sh/NG��.•' �llttll; ^t' , WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Car Weimer, Committee Chair Natural Resources Committee, 10/7/2008, Page 9